the truth shall set you free

There are many reasons I am a Creationist. Of course, a lot of my views stem from “faith” that the Bible is God’s true word. But what is faith? Hebrews 11:1 says it is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” This is, of course, a perfect description of Christian faith, a concept consistently ridiculed by the atheistic community. However, it seems that in the realm of cosmology, atheistic scientists are operating on the same type of “faith” as those they so often judge ignorant. After all, honest scientists admit that ignorance is the driving force behind scientific discovery. That said, a theory such as the Big Bang - the most widely-accepted explanation for the origin of the universe - is to scientists “the evidence of things not seen.” That’s right, faith.

My views concerning the universe are indeed shaped by faith. My rejection of the evolutionary model, however, is rooted in science, and my fundamental disagreements with such theories are based on common sense and plain reason.

Paul wrote in Romans 1:20 that “[God’s] invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So [we] are without excuse.” As the relatively new “Intelligent Design” movement argues, the complexity of our world, our bodies and our minds cannot be explained by mere random mutations. But teleological arguments are nothing new; in fact, the “watchmaker” analogy was drawn as early as 75 BC by Cicero, and he didn’t even have evolutionary theory to argue against.

Teleological arguments - though powerful - fail to reach the core of the issue. I can look at my body, my circulatory system, my respiratory system - all of my interdependent systems - and laugh at the concept that it happened by “accident.” I grew up touting the teleological anecdote of a tornado ripping through a junkyard and, by chance, leaving a perfectly constructed Boeing 747 amidst the debris. This is a powerful analogy, because of it’s absurdity. Even then, a 747 is made up of a lot fewer parts than the human body, or for that matter, the entire symbiotic universe.

Yet, such an argument overshoots the issue. For example, the 747 anecdote assumes that the necessary parts for a 747 must have been present in the junkyard in order to be assembled - even by chance. This is the same assumption that evolutionary scientists make when building upon the work of Darwin. Science has gone back as far as they can imagine - the beginning of everything, or singularity - and given us the Big Bang theory. According to Wikipedia, the Big Bang was “an explosion of space and matter, starting from an enormously dense and hot state at some finite time in the past.” Not unlike our tornado-built airplane, the Big Bang ignores a very important question. Where did the original components come from?

Cosmologists move forward in time developing the theory and it’s off-shoots with no regard to this fundamental problem. The fact is, the Big Bang demands one of two un-scientific (impossible) conclusions:

1. Matter existed eternally and at some point in infinite time condensed, overheated and exploded, OR
2. Matter spontaneously originated from asbolutely nothing, then condensed, overheated and exploded.

Option 1 cannot be the case simply because the theory itself claims that it occurred within a “finite time-frame.” In addition, science does not support the concept of eternal matter or the spontaneous generation of matter. How, then, is the Big Bang scientifically plausible? Quite simply, it isn’t.

Physicist Michio Kaku, the co-founder of the String Field theory, seems to allow for the same nonsense in his hyper-spacial theories. Though I do highly recommend his book, Hyperspace, I am surprised and frustrated by the absurdity of his thoughts on the Big Bang:

One advantage to having a theory of all forces is that we may be able to resolve some of the thorniest, long-standing questions in physics, such as the origin of the universe, and the existence of “wormholes” and even time machines. The 10 dimensional superstring theory, for example, gives us a compelling explanation of the origin of the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion which took place 15 to 20 billion years ago, which sent the stars and galaxies hurling in all directions. In this theory, the universe originally started as a perfect 10 dimensional universe with nothing in it. In the beginning, the universe was completely empty. However, this 10 dimensional universe was not stable. The original 10 dimensional space-time finally “cracked” into two pieces, a four and a six dimensional universe. The universe made the “quantum leap” to another universe in which six of the 10 dimensions collapsed and curled up into a tiny ball, allowing the remaining four dimensional universe to explode outward at an enormous rate. The four dimensional universe (our world) expanded rapidly, creating the Big Bang, while the six dimensional universe wrapped itself into a tiny ball and shrunk down to infinitesimal size. This explains the origin of the Big Bang. The cur rent expansion of the universe, which we can measure with our instruments, is a rather minor aftershock of a more cataclysmic collapse: the breaking of a 10 dimensional universe into a four and six dimensional universe.” (emphasis added)

From all of this comes 3 simple questions, the basis for my refusal to adopt the faith of modern cosmology:

1. If the universe “begins” completely empty, when and how did it come to have something in it?
2. Did this inexplicable “first matter” contain all of the known elements? If not, how did the others come to be?
3. Conceding either the eternality or spontaneous generation of matter, at what point (and how) did inorganic matter suddenly become living?

Scientists need to be asking these questions. Unfortunately, many are building vast theories upon a foundation fundamentally flawed.
__
For more discussion on the scientific weakness of the Big Bang, I recommend these articles, as well:

• http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2635
• http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem